MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922498131 · doi:10.1117/12.2512844

Deformable MRI-TRUS surface registration from statistical deformation models of the prostate

2019· article· en· W2922498131 on OpenAlexaff
Shirin Shakeri, Cynthia Ménard, Rui Pedro Lopes, Samuel Kadoury

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage registrationDeformation (meteorology)Computer scienceProstateArtificial intelligenceGeologyComputer visionMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is considered the standard of care for imaging the prostate during biopsy and brachytherapy procedures. However, interpretation of TRUS images is challenging due to high specularity, making it difficult to recognize prostate boundaries. Image-guided brachytherapy and fusion-guided prostate biopsies require accurate non-rigid registration of magnetic resonance pre-operative image to intra-operative TRUS. State of the art techniques suggest semi-automated segmentation of the prostate on the TRUS images. However, due to the high variability, segmentation of the prostate is challenging. Segmentation errors could lead into poor localization of the biopsy target and can impact the registration of pre-operative images. In general, this kind of registration is challenging since the prostate anatomy undergoes motion due to TRUS probe pressure. In this paper, we propose a non-rigid surface registration approach for MR-TRUS fusion based on a statistical deformation model. Our method builds a statistical deformation model (SDM) of pre-operative to intra-operative deformations on a prostate dataset. In order to compute the fusion for an unseen MR-TRUS pair, the trained SDM is incorporated into the registration process to increase the fusion accuracy. The proposed approach is evaluated on a dataset of 23 patients with prostate cancer, for which the MRI-TRUS scans were available. We compared the proposed non-rigid SDM registration to non-rigid Iterative closest point (NICP) and rigid ICP approaches. Experiments demonstrate that the proposed SDM based method outperforms both NICP and ICP approaches, yielding a mean squared distance of 0.52 ± 0.26mm at the base, 0.45 ± 0.17mm mid-gland and 0.59 ± 0.13mm at the apex. These results show the advantage of integrating prior knowledge of deformation fields due to probe pressure for MR-TRUS fusion prostate interventions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207